If it wasn't March 16, I would say "April Fools". Virtually every nation on earth we care about looking at has an air force that could take this out. Most of them have access to SAM's. The Soviets took down the U2 traveling at MACH 3 at 65000 feet back in the early 60's. We already look down on the US from space with resolution high enough to see a zit on your face, Hello Google Earth!!!
Firstly, they are dirt cheap compared to a satellite, second, whatever detail you can see from space you can see even more from 65k feet, especially if you have a fleet of them and map everything in 3D. Thirdly, there are a ton of places these could be useful where there is very little risk of being shot down : Iraq, Afghanistan, US-Mexico border, South America, Africa. ...
Somehow I accidently slipped from reality to some sort of urban blog site for sub 50 IQ thirteenyearolds. I do not usually read such messages but trolled through to see if even 1 of your commentators could acctually see the benefits of such a low cost large area survielance system. No one? Must be people from the "land of the free". I feel I must explain to "coachgeorge" that a U2 could not hit Mach 1 in a dive far less Mach 3. For the benefit of your unread masses the USSR scrambled over 200 fighters and had their entire anti aircraft system activelly trying to shoot down a U2 for over 3 years. Gary Powers was sacrificed to allow the West to judge USSR AA capability, why else did the U2's do a regular run over the same route? To think of 1 role for this system which would pay for itself in the first year would be to put 4 or 5 over the Indian Ocean, have a single warship responsible for cover and end piracy from Somalia. The warship role could be rotated through the maritime nations with 1 navies ship being responsible for 3 months. This would save multiple times the cost of the whole project per year. Do you really think you can mount a SAM system to reach 65000ft on a fishing boat? An Aegis type cruiser would have a difficult job shooting it down! Pleeeeeese try to be realistic. I have no axe to grind, think all US polticians are almost as bad as all our politicians, but I feel angry at this urban US anti americanism. It is no longer hip to be a rebel. That stupidity should have ended in 1968 at the Sorborne, LSE and Grovsnor Square.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
If it wasn't March 16, I would say "April Fools".
Virtually every nation on earth we care about looking at has an air force that could take this out. Most of them have access to SAM's. The Soviets took down the U2 traveling at MACH 3 at 65000 feet back in the early 60's.
We already look down on the US from space with resolution high enough to see a zit on your face, Hello Google Earth!!!
Frankly, I don't get it.....
I think Google Earth uses planes for the more detailed imagery and satellites for the higher-up imagery.
This will be used to police the "peaceful" borders of the Confederate United Magistrate, which are several countries split out of the former U.S.A.
Firstly, they are dirt cheap compared to a satellite, second, whatever detail you can see from space you can see even more from 65k feet, especially if you have a fleet of them and map everything in 3D. Thirdly, there are a ton of places these could be useful where there is very little risk of being shot down : Iraq, Afghanistan, US-Mexico border, South America, Africa. ...
The U2 was (is) sub-sonic, your thinking of the SR71 (none of these were ever shot down).
Somehow I accidently slipped from reality to some sort of urban blog site for sub 50 IQ thirteenyearolds. I do not usually read such messages but trolled through to see if even 1 of your commentators could acctually see the benefits of such a low cost large area survielance system. No one? Must be people from the "land of the free".
I feel I must explain to "coachgeorge" that a U2 could not hit Mach 1 in a dive far less Mach 3.
For the benefit of your unread masses the USSR scrambled over 200 fighters and had their entire anti aircraft system activelly trying to shoot down a U2 for over 3 years.
Gary Powers was sacrificed to allow the West to judge USSR AA capability, why else did the U2's do a regular run over the same route?
To think of 1 role for this system which would pay for itself in the first year would be to put 4 or 5 over the Indian Ocean, have a single warship responsible for cover and end piracy from Somalia. The warship role could be rotated through the maritime nations with 1 navies ship being responsible for 3 months. This would save multiple times the cost of the whole project per year.
Do you really think you can mount a SAM system to reach 65000ft on a fishing boat?
An Aegis type cruiser would have a difficult job shooting it down!
Pleeeeeese try to be realistic.
I have no axe to grind, think all US polticians are almost as bad as all our politicians, but I feel angry at this urban US anti americanism. It is no longer hip to be a rebel.
That stupidity should have ended in 1968 at the Sorborne, LSE and Grovsnor Square.